Talk:HPV vaccine

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rgonzalezrios, Blu65, Crystalnguyentan, Yalda22. Peer reviewers: Pharmacystudentkm.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

New VGX-3100 Vaccine
This article should be updated with this information.

VGX-3100, is a DNA-based immunotherapy that has the potential to be the first treatment for cervical HPV infection and the first non-surgical treatment for precancerous cervical lesions. Currently in phase III trials, preliminary results show a positive effect on decreasing cervical dysplasia and eliminating HPV infection. 186.15.12.15 (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We are looking for a review per WP:MEDRS. There are currently none. We already have a section on the topic HPV_vaccines Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I found this another reference from sciencedirect, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673615002391 186.15.12.15 (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please use secondary sources. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

See below the European decision about the waiver application of this vaccine 186.15.12.15 (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC) http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/pips/EMEA-002022-PIP01-16/pip_001561.jsp

Study about this vaccine published by AACR http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2017/10/28/1078-0432.CCR-17-2335

"As previously reported, treatment of high-grade cervical dysplasia with VGX-3100 resulted in complete histopathologic regression (CR) concomitant with elimination of HPV16/18 infection in 40.0% of VGX-3100–treated patients compared with only 14.3% in placebo recipients in a randomized phase IIb study"

(40-14.3)% = 25.7% of cancers were eliminated or complete regression (CR), compared to placebo.

https://aacrjournals.org/clincancerres/article/24/2/276/123010/Clinical-and-Immunologic-Biomarkers-for-Histologic

JANUARY 15 2018, Free to read.

91.159.189.148 (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

California_State_University_East_Bay/HSC_355_Bioethics_(Spring_2019)
I reverted the following edit today by as the citation appeared to be to their user sandbox and does not follow MEDRS. , please speak with your instructor to learn how to add citations and revise this edit as per WP:MEDRS. I also noticed that the article you cited is nearly 10 years old and does not follow WP:MEDDATE. reverted text: In a 2009 population study from the Journal of American Academy of Pediatrics, the rate of HPV detection decreased after the implementation of the vaccine in 2009.[6] In Europe, HPV accounts for more than 70% of cases of cervical cancer. Removing the risk of developing cancer through vaccination has led to the push for mass vaccination. Opposition exists due to the monetary interests of pharmaceutical companies to conduct mass vaccination, and safety issues has caused tension. [7]

It is great to see new Wikipedia editors! Many Wikipedians are happy to help so don't hesitate to post ideas or questions on the article talk page before editing directly. JenOttawa (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input, I tried to add an additional source referencing HPV vaccination in developing countries, including some of the challenges faced during vaccine rollout. Open to any input and critique.
 * Marc Marcmatossian
 * Thanks for responding here . I think the first step is to review the guideline for reliable sources for medical article on Wikipedia: WP:MEDRS to find sources that are appropriate for Wikipedia. I see that Doc James posted some instructions on how to edit Wikipedia on your personal talk page. Secondly, it is important to add the citations correctly in the article (when you added them the first time they were added as links to your practice area "sandbox"). Do you have support from your course instructors on this project? Please speak with them to ensure you are interpreting MEDRS correctly. There are a lot of excellent online resources available for people to learn how to add citations and decide which evidence to cite in Wikipedia articles. Pay attention to the medical-specific suggestions as medical information (content pertaining to human health) on Wikipedia follows medical-specific guidelines. I encourage you to reach out to you instructor first, then post your ideas here on the talk page (including exactly what you propose to add to improve the article including your citation). Thanks again for working to improve this article. It is great that your class is participating in this project. Kind regards, JenOttawa (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Foundations II 2019 Group 2C Goals
We are a group of second year pharmacy students who will be working together to update and edit this article. I will work to modify and implement current recommendations to improve this article. This includes discussing current controversy surrounding vaccine implementation with reliable sources, and to identify reliable sources for discussing age expansion and side effects. Yalda22 (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Yalda22

Peer Review Part 2:

1) Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? Yes, the edits reflect a neutral point of view. Added additional symptoms, which is objective data. Lauren.chen (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

2) The points were not verifiable which is why the changes were reverted. The article linked required log in access to retrieve the information. Not all sources were secondary sources.Clphan (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

3) Yes, the edits were consistent with the Wikipedia manual of style. It flowed nicely with the rest of the article and the type of information added was matter of fact and cited from an appropriate source. Pharmacystudentkm (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

4) There was no plagiarism. The information was cited appropriately from the source it was retrieved from. Kelventran (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review Part 1: 1)If the changes were not reverted, the group’s edits would have substantially improved the article because the side effects currently on the article are not detailed enough. 2)The group originally did meet their goals and with more assistance with the sourcing, they would be able to reach all their goals in regards to keeping the edits. Pharmacystudentkm (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Yalda22 as mentioned on your talk page, secondary sources are required per WP:MEDRS. If you are not sure what these are please ask. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Reference DOEs not substantiate the fact asserted
""In April 2007, Australia became the first country to introduce a national government-funded human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program"[94]. Yet the page asserts that this paper references the fact that it was the "second country - after Austria" to do so. If it was the second country, a reference with dates for the start of the program in Austria is needed. MargaretRDonald (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)